Sastre blasts Armstrong ! "He has no respect and no point"!!

[Anonymous]

I know, right? How shallow to not like someone based on their personality. I personally choose which people I like/dislike based on how pretty the are.

I base it on whether they have a Trek or not.....

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Do you actually read what you post?

Yes. Do you read what you comment on? Here's an annotated version:

I did not compare Armstrong to Ali. What I wrote was: "What you're complaining about pales in comparison to the 'disrespect' conveyed by great entertaining champions like Muhammad Ali."

I was talking about statements Armstrong made to statements Ali made, and how they (THE STATEMENTS) compare in terms of supposedly expressing disrespect. That's all. It was a simple example to illustrate a point. Please don't increase the scope of my meaning by taking it out of context.

I was comparing the statements they made, not the people.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I know, right? How shallow to not like someone based on their personality. I personally choose which people I like/dislike based on how pretty the are.

Well, there is their real personality, which you can learn about about when you get to know someone, which includes meeting them, and there is the personality of a public person's public persona, which is very superficial.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes. Do you read what you comment on? Here's an annotated version:

I did not compare Armstrong to Ali. What I wrote was: "What you're complaining about pales in comparison to the 'disrespect' conveyed by great entertaining champions like Muhammad Ali."

I was talking about statements Armstrong made to statements Ali made, and how they (THE STATEMENTS) compare in terms of supposedly expressing disrespect. That's all. It was a simple example to illustrate a point. Please don't increase the scope of my meaning by taking it out of context.

I was comparing the statements they made, not the people.

So you separate "statements" from the internal workings of their psyche which is the basis for who they "are" and therefore what they "say?" Interesting. Do you read Psychology Today?

You will parse out any word before admitting you didn't write out a well thought out statement.

 

[Irish2009]

Ninety5rpm..my dislike of Armstrong is not based on his accent,colour,country of origin or any other superficial thing but the way in which he behaved and portrayed himself on that first day(first impressions last). Aussies are in general pretty hard to embarass but the Aussie in our company that day clearly was.

 

[Anonymous]

Again, Mr Armstrong has tried to destroy people's lives because of his need to manage the content of the doping discussion in regards to him. I only need to name one name to justify my dislike for the man. I envy being someone such as you or Mr Armstrong as much as I envy the children who work in Nike factories.

Its funny, you talk about posting and flaming out of emotion and never recognize the irony of the tone of your first post on this thread. Again, I am not surprised, but you should be embarrassed.

BTW, the name is Betsy Andreau.

You mean this?

"The Andreus' allegation was not supported by any of the eight other people present, including Armstrong's doctor Craig Nichols, or his medical history"

You might not like that being on Lances wiki page but it's source is Velonews.

http://velonews.com/article/10088

"And in a sworn affidavit, Dr. Craig Nichols – one of the doctors treating Armstrong at Indiana University Medical Center – said he and other medical personnel visited with Armstrong that day about his medical history before he started chemotherapy, and no such admission was ever made in his presence.

Now the chair of hematology-oncology at Oregon Health and Sciences University, Nichols said that Armstrong "never admitted, suggested or indicated that he has ever taken performance-enhancing drugs. Had this been disclosed to me, I would have recorded it, or been aware of it, as a pertinent aspect of Lance Armstrong's past medical history as I always do."

"Had I been present at any such 'confession,' I would most certainly have vividly recalled the fact," Nichols, a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Lance Armstrong Foundation, continued. "I would have recorded such a confession as a matter of form, as indeed, would have my colleagues. None was recorded."

That's the other side of the story.

 

[BikeCentric]

I see your point, but I think there is a special envious resentment for a seven-time winner. To the extent that people often naturally favor the underdog, this is the opposite. If you take his behavior and statements in context, it's really not that bad. People are looking for reasons to dislike him, and there must be an emotional reason for it, since there is no rational one. That anti-underdog envy theory is the only one I can fathom.

Well that I'll buy. People like to root for the underdog and LA is certainly the anti-underdog! Well he used to be anyway, he's a bit of an underdog himself this year.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

So you separate "statements" from the internal workings of their psyche which is the basis for who they "are" and therefore what they "say?" Interesting. Do you read Psychology Today?

You will parse out any word before admitting you didn't write out a well thought out statement.

A statement someone makes is a mere glimpse into one aspect of who that complex (all people are complex) person is. Comparing statements made by people is very different from comparing the people making them.

Speaking of comparing statements... look at this thread all stemming from Armstrong saying last year's Tour was a bit of a joke. Imagine if Armstrong had said,

"I am the astronaut of cycling. Bernard Hinault and Merckx were just jet pilots. I'm in a world of my own. "

Can you even imagine???

"I am the astronaut of boxing. Joe Louis and Dempsey were just jet pilots. I'm in a world of my own. " - Muhammad Ali

 

[Anonymous]

You mean this?

"The Andreus' allegation was not supported by any of the eight other people present, including Armstrong's doctor Craig Nichols, or his medical history"

You might not like that being on Lances wiki page but it's source is Velonews.

http://velonews.com/article/10088

"And in a sworn affidavit, Dr. Craig Nichols – one of the doctors treating Armstrong at Indiana University Medical Center – said he and other medical personnel visited with Armstrong that day about his medical history before he started chemotherapy, and no such admission was ever made in his presence.

Now the chair of hematology-oncology at Oregon Health and Sciences University, Nichols said that Armstrong "never admitted, suggested or indicated that he has ever taken performance-enhancing drugs. Had this been disclosed to me, I would have recorded it, or been aware of it, as a pertinent aspect of Lance Armstrong's past medical history as I always do."

"Had I been present at any such 'confession,' I would most certainly have vividly recalled the fact," Nichols, a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Lance Armstrong Foundation, continued. "I would have recorded such a confession as a matter of form, as indeed, would have my colleagues. None was recorded."

That's the other side of the story.

No, there is much more to it than that, but your fanboydom will not allow in any information that contradicts your ignorance. You prove it time and again Toughy McToughster.

In fact, I'd post the recording of one of those people admitting it which proves their perjury. I mean, the tape was illegally obtained, but it does not alter the FACT that she said it right there and there is no mistaking who the two people on the tape are, and what was said. You would defend him if they had a picture of him with the IV in his arm.

Suffice to say that I believe Ms Andreau and its funny that Lance has never sued her over the statement.

Hey, why not go complain about me again. I like it when you are whiny.

 

[Anonymous]

A statement someone makes is a mere glimpse into one aspect of who that complex (all people are complex) person is. Comparing statements made by people is very different from comparing the people making them.

Speaking of comparing statements... look at this thread all stemming from Armstrong saying last year's Tour was a bit of a joke. Imagine if Armstrong had said,

"I am the astronaut of cycling. Bernard Hinault and Merckx were just jet pilots. I'm in a world of my own. "

Can you even imagine???

"I am the astronaut of boxing. Joe Louis and Dempsey were just jet pilots. I'm in a world of my own. " - Muhammad Ali

I just threw up my hands. You couldn't see it, but I did.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

How would you feel if that arrogant SOB Armstrong made any of the following statements?

"I am the greatest, I said that even before I knew I was."

"I figured that if I said it enough, I would convince the world that I really was the greatest. "

"I'll beat him so bad he'll need a shoehorn to put his hat on. "

"I'm so fast that last night I turned off the light switch in my hotel room and was in bed before the room was dark. "

"I'm the most recognized and loved man that ever lived cuz there weren't no satellites when Jesus and Moses were around, so people far away in the villages didn't know about them."

"It's hard to be humble, when you're as great as I am. "

"It's not bragging if you can back it up."

Of course, Armstrong didn't say any of that. Not even close. That was all Ali. What Armstrong said was that last year's Tour was a bit of a joke. O. M. G.

Perspective, folks, how about a little perspective?

 

[Anonymous]

How would you feel if that arrogant SOB Armstrong made any of the following statements?

Of course, Armstrong didn't say any of that. Not even close. That was all Ali. What Armstrong said was that last year's Tour was a bit of a joke. O. M. G.

Perspective, folks, how about a little perspective?

I wouldn't feel any differently about him than I already do. It isn't his words that cause me dislike him, it is his actions. Though his words are also onerous. Do you really think you are going to present some argument that will sway me in this?

 

[Mellow Velo]

Darn, it's quiet around here, tonight. I thought it was because of our "new" section.
Having read this thread, I see I was wrong.

 

[BikeCentric]

How would you feel if that arrogant SOB Armstrong made any of the following statements?

Of course, Armstrong didn't say any of that. Not even close. That was all Ali. What Armstrong said was that last year's Tour was a bit of a joke. O. M. G.

Perspective, folks, how about a little perspective?

What is your point? Ali was an arrogant d-bag as well (not to mention he had an IQ of a box of hammers) so why bring him up?

 

[Irish2009]

Ali could make the most arrogant of statements and get away with it because he had wit(which transcended the continents),so people liked him. Armstrong makes statements with no wit so he comes across as plainly arrogant which most people don't like.

 

[Anonymous]

No, there is much more to it than that, but your fanboydom will not allow in any information that contradicts your ignorance. You prove it time and again Toughy McToughster.

In fact, I'd post the recording of one of those people admitting it which proves their perjury. I mean, the tape was illegally obtained, but it does not alter the FACT that she said it right there and there is no mistaking who the two people on the tape are, and what was said. You would defend him if they had a picture of him with the IV in his arm.

Suffice to say that I believe Ms Andreau and its funny that Lance has never sued her over the statement.

Hey, why not go complain about me again. I like it when you are whiny.

You go ahead and post that recording and I'll post the response and counter argument.

This forum is known around the world for being mostly hypercritical of Lance. I don't want readers of this forum from around the world to think there's no counter arguments or doubts about many of the things said here.

He did not win 7 tours simply because he was the best doper with the best dope, best doctors and secrets that nobody had access to. There are people who have been caught doing about everything imaginable and still couldn't beat him.

Doping is not his fault, he didn't invent it, and stopping it wasn't in his job description.

All he as done is successfully defend himself and it upsets you that he can't be rattled.

In the context of what happened in the sport, finding a picture with him with a blood bag would not shock me as some people I do respect think that as much of 90 percent of the tour field doped at times during the blood boosting era.

I am shocked that people think he's the face of evil itself if that's true and that they're shocked that he'd defend himself if it's true.

It's his job to be part of the sport and it's culture and win, not to be it's Saviour or a crusader. Others have the difficult job of policing the sport and I do believe they are getting pretty damn good at it.

He's back in a different climate that when he left. He's worked hard, which you saw yourself, and he's been tested 35 times and they'll test hell out of him during the race.

You can clearly see more worldwide interest in the sport than there was last year. Seeing as the world's economy is sliding downslope and sponsor money is going to get hard to come by, I think it's a great thing that he's returned.

Amost time to race.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Ali could make the most arrogant of statements and get away with it because he had wit(which transcended the continents),so people liked him. Armstrong makes statements with no wit so he comes across as plainly arrogant which most people don't like.

Good point. It's true that Armstrong is not very witty, but that's hardly a reason to hold him in low esteem.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You go ahead and post that recording and I'll post the response and counter argument.

If you are going to go down that route guys I respectfully suggest you check-in to the clinic! Thats what its there for.

 

[Anonymous]

You go ahead and post that recording and I'll post the response and counter argument.

This forum is known around the world for being mostly hypercritical of Lance. I don't want readers of this forum from around the world to think there's no counter arguments or doubts about many of the things said here.

He did not win 7 tours simply because he was the best doper with the best dope, best doctors and secrets that nobody had access to. There are people who have been caught doing about everything imaginable and still couldn't beat him.

Doping is not his fault, he didn't invent it, and stopping it wasn't in his job description.

All he as done is successfully defend himself and it upsets you that he can't be rattled.

In the context of what happened in the sport, finding a picture with him with a blood bag would not shock me as some people I do respect think that as much of 90 percent of the tour field doped at times during the blood boosting era.

I am shocked that people think he's the face of evil itself if that's true and that they're shocked that he'd defend himself if it's true.

It's his job to be part of the sport and it's culture and win, not to be it's Saviour or a crusader. Others have the difficult job of policing the sport and I do believe they are getting pretty damn good at it.

He's back in a different climate that when he left. He's worked hard, which you saw yourself, and he's been tested 35 times and they'll test hell out of him during the race.

You can clearly see more worldwide interest in the sport than there was last year. Seeing as the world's economy is sliding downslope and sponsor money is going to get hard to come by, I think it's a great thing that he's returned.

Amost time to race.

Wow, you really think you are more important than you are.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Wow, you really think you are more important than you are.

Is it just me, or this a personal attack? I'm just asking.

 

[Captain Kirk]

I see your point, but I think there is a special envious resentment for a seven-time winner. To the extent that people often naturally favor the underdog, this is the opposite. If you take his behavior and statements in context, it's really not that bad. People are looking for reasons to dislike him, and there must be an emotional reason for it, since there is no rational one. That anti-underdog envy theory is the only one I can fathom.

True,

We call in it "the tall poppy syndrome" in Australia, you can even see it with the way we built up Cadel in 07 and started shafting him on 08...

As for LA...we are not talking about a tall poppy, we are seeing a self serving privet garden

 

[Captain Kirk]

So the fact that he's an arrogant prat and that rubs some people up the wrong way never crossed your mind? You really don't have to look far to find perfectly rational reasons for disliking Armstrong.

Contrast the trash talk with what Sastre said the other day: 'Mon seul rival est le Tour. Les autres coureurs sont des collègues de travail qui se sacrifient comme moi pour atteindre leur objectif.' That's the kind of comment a champion makes - respectful to his team, his rivals and the race. The stuff Armstrong spouts might delight those with the mindset of a testosterone filled 14 year old but just comes across as embarassing, 'ugly American' guff to others.

Agree, a truly great champion or leader has respect and humility !

 

[Captain Kirk]

Do you actually read what you post?

Your mistake TFT, you assume he can read

 

[Captain Kirk]

Yea, watching 8 other doped up cyclists string out the entire peloton over mountain after mountain only to deliver their leader at the bottom of the last climb to go off on his own little motor bike and leave everyone else behind was just THRILLING to watch. Why it was the most scintillating of strategies ever devised.......

Entertaining and Inspiring in 99, then as LA said around 2000....he found a template to win and he kept using it...and using and using it

 

[hfer07]

I saw that coming-- but make no mistake... Armstrong is a bully--So Sastre is-------it's always better not underestimate the quiet one!!!!! Proof? Check this out....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-bMiyES46Y